There’s nothing more moronic than watching pundits or news agencies run around asking “Who won the debate?” because, if it had been a real debate rather than a sort of shared press conference, there would be no question. A proposition would be put forward (usually beginning with the word “Resolved”) and at the end a panel of judges, keeping careful score of logically based argumentation, would announce who won.
That doesn’t exist here. In this case, there’s only one measure of success: Whether the small group of undecided voters was swayed one way or the other. The election’s not going to be decided by people like me, who thought that Kerry overall gave a polished, professional and–most important–presidential presentation, because I was rooting for Kerry anyway. And it’s not going to be decided by Bush supporters who came away declaring that Bush triumphed because they were–I dunno–watching another debate entirely, through glasses so rose-colored that Elton John would consider them too gaudy to wear.
No, this election is going to resolved by some guy named Mel, driving a Dodge Durango in Scranton, who might have twigged to the notion that Bush has globally done for America what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen, but still hasn’t been able to move beyond the devil one knows versus the devil one doesn’t. The question is whether Mel was watching and whether he was swayed one way or the other, or will even show up election day.
If enough Mels vote for Kerry, Kerry won. If they vote for Bush, Bush won. It’s really the only verdict that matters.
PAD
• 
There’s been a pox on both houses. The Democrats started raising the bar with Bork. Then Dole raised it again in the 90s when he started using cloture rules to stop Senate votes (now incorrectly called a “filibuster”).
I’m sure it goes back before that, but those are some of the ones I remember. It’s far from one-sided.
But reality and logic seem to mystify you, so believe what you want.
This seems to be the #1 Republican argument these days when they can’t defend their own actions and inactions.
Yet they are the ones that fail to admit, among other things, that Iraq is a quagmire.
The comment I would like to make to all the “Left Wingers” (Dem.) is, why would you want a Commander and Chief who once he takes office will be putting our troops under UN power. That means anytime our nation needs to do something, we have to go through the UN. Our troops would be tried under UN sanctioned courts.
Kerry keeps saying that there was no proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, well we went to the UN 3 times before we finally entered Iraq. That gave Saddam enough time to move the Weapons of Mass Destruction to other countries.
I think the best person in office would have to be Bush. Also who would you want to have as your first lady, Laura Bush, or Theresa Heinz-Kerry? I pick Laura Bush.